GANPATI RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-33
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 01,2013

Ganpati Ram Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) AN FIR was lodged at the instance of PW 4 Bachan Singh (informant) on 09.04.1995 to Patti Patwari, Lalathpato, Sub District Kirtinagar, District Tehri Garhwal against accused -appellant Ganpati Ram in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 323, 392, 504, 506 of IPC. The informant was posted and working as Patwari on the date of incident. After the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused -appellant for the selfsame offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353 and 393 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Budhi Singh, PW 2 Kushal Singh, PW 3 Suresh Chand Tewari (Patwari), PW 4 Bachan Singh (informant), PW 5 Sunder Lal, PW 6 Guru Prasad and PW 7 Mahidhar Prasad were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, found accused Ganpati Ram guilty of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 323 of IPC. The convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was, however, exonerated of the charges levelled against him in respect of other offences. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 6th April 2002, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict.
(2.) PROSECUTION story was that, on 09.04.1995, at about 09:00 A.M., when the informant Bachan Singh, Patwari, was going to execute warrant of arrest in village Unana, accused Ganpati Ram met him on the way. Accused Ganpati Ram made a query to the informant regarding the purpose of his visit to village Unana. The informant disclosed the purpose of his visit to the accused. On this, accused abused the informant, pushed him on the ground and tried to strangulate him. Accused also snatched Rs. 150/ - from the pocket of the informant. Accused tore away the papers in the presence of Sunder Lal, Budhi Singh and Khushal Singh. Budhi Singh and Khushal Singh were the teachers, teaching in the local school. These witnesses saved the informant, otherwise the accused would have strangulated the informant. The witnesses collected torn papers from the road. Accused threatened the informant with dire consequences and fled away from the place of occurrence. The Ratwari of adjoining area also reached there. Informant disclosed the incident to him and lodged the FIR on the selfsame day, at 09:30 A.M. Revenue Police, after investigating the case, submitted the charge -sheet against the accused under Sections 307, 392, 353, 332, 504, 506 of IPC. The injured -informant was medically examined at Primary Health Center, Kirtinagar. The statement of PW 1 Budhi Singh was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The medical examination of the injured was also conducted in time. Pw 1 Budhi Singh (teacher), who was teaching in a local school, said in his examination -in -chief, that on 09.04.1995, at about 10:00 A.M., he was near the DGBR camp alongwith Khushal Singh, Sunder Lal and Patwari Bachan Singh. Pw 4 Bachan Singh informed Pw 1 that he has to go to execute a warrant of arrest of son of Mor Singh. Pw 4 also informed that he was going to village Unana. Pw 4 went to his house to bring the warrant of arrest. Pw 1 waited for Pw 4 in the meanwhile. When they proceeded for village Unana, accused came. A conversation took place between Pw 4 and the accused. Pw 1 heard the cries and went to the place, wherein he found that both Pw 4 and the accused were lying on the ground. The accused laid Pw 4 (Patwari) and sat over him. A scuffle took place between them. Both were drunk. (Pw 4 was not drunk as per his medical report). Thereafter, Pw 1 was declared hostile and was cross -examined by learned D.G.C. (Crl.). In this way, Pw 1 supported a part of the prosecution story.
(3.) PW 2 Khushal Singh supported the prosecution story to some extent and said that he was near DGBR camp on 09.04.1995, at about 10:00 A.M. A scuffle took place between PW 4 and the accused. Other people also assembled there. PW 2, at this stage, was declared hostile and was cross -examined by learned D.G.C. (Crl). The evidence tendered by PW 1 and PW 2 was on the similar footing.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.